Update at 1:54 p.m.: More than four hours after today's hearing began, Judge Phyllis Lister Brown says she will not make a final ruling on the temporary injunction today. There will be another hearing at 1:30 p.m. Monday. The temporary restraining order has been be extended until 4 p.m. Monday.

Brown will likely make a ruling at the conclusion of Monday's hearing.

Original item posted at 7:29 a.m.: At some point today we will likely find out if Trammell Crow Co. can begin planting that Sam's Club in the shadow of Cityplace.

But the attorney representing the newly former neighborhood group insists Trammell Crow and the city only got the deal done by burying -- no, hiding -- the truth from the people living closest to the site.

The East Village Association wants just one thing today: an injunction prohibiting the city from issuing a construction permit until there can be a full-blown trial. Anthony Ricciardelli, the attorney representing the EVA, says he wants the judge to "simply preserve the status quo and prevent there being anything built until we resolve whether the notice was defective or not."

The notice he is referring to is the heads-up sent by the city in May 2013 to inform surrounding property owners of a zoning change for the parcel at North Central Expressway and Carroll Avenue. The notice, a copy of which can be seen at the bottom of this post, refers to "a retail development with design standards" but says nothing about a big-box store.

A potential 100,000 square-foot development was mentioned in documents reviewed and OK'd by the plan commission and the city council, but it was buried deep in the zoning-change notice -- way behind the part that said the proposed development fit snugly within the intimate confines of the forwardDallas! comprehensive development plan. Everyone missed that part until the Sam's Club renderings became public.

One of the filings, also included below, says: "Inherent in that approach is the concession that notices required by statute were indeed given, thus reducing Plaintiffs inquiry to a question of 'how much information is enough' to satisfy the requirements. While 'insufficient notice' cases are few in number, the one that stands out and is of greatest interest to this Court (and from which Plaintiff quotes a stray statement out of context) actually supports TC Central's and the City's position in this case that the notices given were more than adequate."

Long story short: This goes one of two ways. Either the judge declines to grant the injunction, or she kicks the case to a trial. If it's the latter, then the East Village Association will be on the hook for a bond pending trial. Ricciardelli said he hopes it's something "nominal," not more than $500. But he fears Trammell Crow will ask for something enormous, along the lines of, oh, $100 million, claiming that a delay until a trial, which might be a year from now, would be very bad for business.

"The effect of a temporary injunction would be to shut down the next steps in the Development process: preparing infrastructure required in order to carry out asbestos abatement in existing buildings and a demolition thereof; opening the door to the invocation of 'insecurity' or other default provisions in existing agreements; and creating 'domino effect' on the many steps involved for completion of the Development, as each step in the process is dependent upon prior actions," says a document filed Thursday.

"In short order, TC Central would find itself unable to deliver a building site to Sam's Club, which would in turn open the door for substantial delay damages. Meanwhile, Plaintiff blithely ignores the fact that the cost meter would continue unabated, with the reality of carrying charges and the prospects of delay penalties looming. The equities overwhelmingly favor TC Central in this case and weigh strongly against injunctive relief."

And if the judge sides with Trammell Crow on that front and sets the bond high, a newly formed neighborhood association would never be able to foot the bill -- even if it only has to put up 1 percent as a surety bond.

"Residents should have the right to make their government behave in accordance with the law and not have to put up $100 million," Ricciardelli said.

It's sure to be a jam-packed hearing filled with residents in red shirts and their "No MEGA STORE" buttons. We will update this item throughout the day. But as far as Ricciardelli's concerned, "ultimate victory in this case is to reopen the process so that the voices of these residents who will have to live with the havoc this development will wreak in their neighborhood can be heard."